ICC - UDRS for world cup 2011 but Hot Spot unlikely

[thevortex]

What was the reason for touting the umpires ?. Lets start from there. You have a scientific answer to that other than the politically correct verbiage ?.

Bossbhai - you are irretrievably going in circles. I was not touting the umpires. You were denigrating them. But you were championing the cause of Hawkeye. What perhaps could be the reason? Surely not anything statistical or anything scientific? :) And look, its not about being politically correct or not. In fact it has nothing to do with politics of any kind. The umpires just are. Its not like there was a choice to start with. Now you want to supplant them with technology. Show me the proof. Or accept that you just have a preference for Hawkeye and a bias towards umpires. That simple.

Nope I do. Was there a similar independent 3rd party verification process (for bias and accuracy )done for every umpire ? None AFAIK . So the reason why you are demanding that from hawkeye is because _______ ?

See above.

I was talking about the non.predictive part which you didnt trust earlier IIRC ... So now you trust that phew some progress atlast. Now dont you realize that if the preditive part is soo-wrong that pasrt of the trajectory would look odd and out of sync with the non-predictive part ? If H/E is capable of even semi-Bucknoresque howlers a ball hitting middle of middle being deemed not out for height/line would look ridiculous on the screen it wont be smooth at all. Think ! I cant possible dumb it down anymore.

Let me break it down for you. I trust no part of Hawkeye. As for dumb - you are the one willing to believe and swallow hook, line and sinker anything that Hawkeye says, without even a shred of proof. Whither went the statistical bent of mind there, I wonder! By the way, you seem to be under the impression that technology (any kind) is absolutely infallible. Welcome to the real world, Bossbhai. There is nothing like that. Oh about the smoothness of the depicted curve, have you given thought to how it would look non-ridiculous if the whole thing was uniformly wrong. In fact thats the way these systems work. See, even the Hawkeye-testers would have found out if there was some sort of hump or irregularity in there. I think this should suffice. You and I are on different sides of the fence on this topic. That is fine with me.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[cowboysfan]

i am not getting my hopes up.a lot of teams(England,India come to mind)don't want this in the world cup.

[Gunner_Mania]

http://www.cricinfo.com/england-v-bangladesh-2010/engine/current/match/426401.html That is the match page for Eng-vs-BD ... click on the Hawkeye tab ... and select these options from the dropdowns feature = trajectory viewer inngs = BD 2nd inngs bowler = Bresnan batsman = Shahadat Hossain Over = 83 ball = 3 This is the ball where he was cleaned up. Now this is the snapshot from the highlights pkg of the same incident. (click on attachment) . It is taken at the point of impact. You can see how the Hawkeye shows the exact same thing.

but, it is not independently certified. So it is pointless. Aren't you boys done with this argument yet? Dint we all like good baize agree to disagree on this?

[achilles]

I support thevortex in his comments about the blatant bias of the ICC in ignoring the scarily regular and disgraceful bullying and intimidation of the umpires by the Australian players. And I feel the ICC has done the right thing here. Should bring in some transparency. Although we will have a few Stuart Broad-like "I hit the ball, yet I'll stand, expecting the computer to screw-up but get pwned in front of millions of people" kinda ocassions

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[f2000560]

but, it is not independently certified. So it is pointless. Aren't you boys done with this argument yet? Dint we all like good baize agree to disagree on this?

who exactly has the authority to independently verify these sort of things ? well i read up on how haweye works and it seems fairly comprehensive and very scope for error with more than a single camera picking up speed trajectory etc to triangulate position of the ball and then extrapolate it based on factors such as height, angle, speed probably even wind velocity if that matters a lot. awkward bounce if any will be before impact of pads and will in all probability be taken into account. If if there are errors ( probably the minutest of details which can probably be smoothed through adapting and learning of more and more samples) they will be truly unbiased. cause we all seem to agree that umpire sub consciously seem to favor the perceived stronger teams with decisions that can go either way.

[thevortex]

Yes you were. Let me know if you need me to point out to the relevant posts.

Wrong. I was defending them. You were touting the Hawkeye. And yes, there is a difference :). If you want to replace the umpires, you better bring in data, Bossbhai. Or accept that you dont have it and that you are blindly believing it.

ehhh ? You wrote this in the previous post ... which is opposite of what you wrote in the post#61. Pls make up your mind on where you stand. But in any case I shall show you evidence from the clean bowled dissmisals to proove my point.

Both are true, Bossbhai. :) Forget about evidence and just see the action. I am sure you will find cause to disagree with Hawkeye. Look for balls that are speared in to the batsman. Invariably the decision to give would be not out. But damn me, if Hawkeye does not show the ball shaving or kissing or cuddling the outermost part of the leg stump! Cricket decisions can just not be given like that, Bossbhai. It is ludicrous. Like I said you have been missing my point in this all this while. And I have lost belief that you will indeed understand this aspect.

I trust my eyes more than any third party independent verification.

Cool, fantastic. I rest my case, then. Because you are confident enough to trust your eyes in this matter, I would say it is fair and safe for the umpires to be trusted with their eyes. :)

[thevortex]

who exactly has the authority to independently verify these sort of things ? well i read up on how haweye works and it seems fairly comprehensive and very scope for error with more than a single camera picking up speed trajectory etc to triangulate position of the ball and then extrapolate it based on factors such as height, angle, speed probably even wind velocity if that matters a lot. awkward bounce if any will be before impact of pads and will in all probability be taken into account. If if there are errors ( probably the minutest of details which can probably be smoothed through adapting and learning of more and more samples) they will be truly unbiased. cause we all seem to agree that umpire sub consciously seem to favor the perceived stronger teams with decisions that can go either way.

Forget about the 'who' for a moment as far as independent verification goes. Just consider that there is nothing available on this subject. If Hawkeye is so good and accurate why not release the basis by which Richardson claims those fantastic numbers? By the way, there is probably a reason why Hawkeye is not used in the French Open. It would have been cruelly exposed. :) Especially more so in tennis where a few mm matter a lot.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

http://www.cricinfo.com/england-v-bangladesh-2010/engine/current/match/426401.html That is the match page for Eng-vs-BD ... click on the Hawkeye tab ... and select these options from the dropdowns feature = trajectory viewer inngs = BD 2nd inngs bowler = Bresnan batsman = Shahadat Hossain Over = 83 ball = 3 This is the ball where he was cleaned up. Now this is the snapshot from the highlights pkg of the same incident. (click on attachment) . It is taken at the point of impact. You can see how the Hawkeye shows the exact same thing.

This snapshot does not tell anything about the trajectory of the ball, nor about the point of impact on the wicket or the angle with which it came into the batsman. Nothing is conclusive, I am afraid. And by the way, I never said that Hawkeye is wrong with every depiction. Like I have said, there have been instances where I thought Hawkeye was reasonably accurate. But - it is nowhere near accurate enough to dispense with the umpires when it comes to LBWs. Too bad intuition is not something that Hawkeye can develop. Or a conscience. :)

[thevortex]

Just on the matter of being unbiased and thus ensuring level playing field Hawkeye outscores the umpires big time. And I did post the evidence check post#63 above.

You are changing the subject, man. Simple question - do you have the data? If you dont, just accept that you are blindly believing in Hawkeye.

Nope cannot. Unless you want to invoke principles of Lahori Logic.

Nope. Read it again. I did not say I disagree only with the predictive path. So, yes, both can be true. :)

Is there some law of physics that states that balls speared into a batsman cannot graze the legstump ? and shoulder before wkt , bat before wkt are soo much infinitely better how ?

Like I said - watch the action. It should be self explanatory if you watch it without those rose-tinted glasses you have on for Hawkeye.

come back when you find a SINGLE howler on the Bucknor scale and we can admit your case for hearing .... right now your deposit has been forfeited.

No, no. You got that wrong, Bossbhai. You have got to explain to everybody how it is OK for you to trust your eyes as far as Hawkeye's accuracy is concerned and how it is NOT OK for the umpires to trust their eyes. So, unless you want to close this discussion here, it falls upon you to explain these points. By the way you seem to be besotten over Bucknor. Nobody including me is claiming that umpires give right decisions all the time. For the record I have a very poor estimation of Brian Jerling as well. You are the one who wants to replace them with Hawkeye. Bring on the data. Otherwise, there is no case to be argued.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

No Iam not. Being neutral and impartial is a fundamental requirement of any umpire. There is just tons and tons of evidence of players questioning the integrity of umpires.

You fool yourself if you believe that the umpires' integrity is under question. You may, if you want, start another poll on this, if you like. :)

Because the lbw business is soo complicated that a normal human being cannot get it right all the time. Which is why they have devised technology. I have explained this in great detail in our past discussions look it up.

So why do you alone have the liberty and privilege of trusting and certifying Hawkeye's accuracy through the evidence of your eyes while others may not do the same????? Does not make sense, Bossbhai. Just leave it be.

And the data that validated the umpires is where .... if it is not there why so ? and why are you ok with it not being there ? But are now getting technical when it comes to H/E ? You never even have a logical answer for this .... And yay we are back to square one. What now ? Care to comment on the evidence that I presented in post#63

I dont think you are even making an attempt to understand, Bossbhai. I am surprised because the points I made are fairly simple. Nobody is claiming that the umpires are accurate all the time. You want to bring in Hawkeye. Prove to me scientifically that they are rather more accurate when it comes to LBWs. And that they dont cheat a batsman of the opportunity of batting on with wrong decisions. Remember the principle of natural justice when checking it out. It is very relevant. All you have is Richardson's speech about the 'alleged accuracy' of Hawkeye. Nothing else. Zip. Nada. Just accept and move on. And your talk of umpires' measure of accuracy is irrelevant. There has never been such a quantifiable measure for such things!!! And I have repeated this a gazillion times. Lastly I have responded to your post # 63. Look it up - a few posts above this one.

[thevortex]

BTW your failure to produce one single piece of decision that is a even a semi-glaring howler is telling you what ? Perhaps there is no evidence to support your conspiracy theories ? And can you give me a clear cut straight forward answer on whether you think Hawkeye is more error prone than umpires ?

Hawkeye is inaccurate. There - that is your straight forward answer. One that I have been repeating ad infinitum. And I am no Richardson to put random percentages to these things - even though I can see he has many followers even when he pulls numbers seemingly out of the air! :) Like I said - if you think Hawkeye is pin point accurate as far as LBWs are concerned, then there are two possibilities. You either do not watch live telecasts or even if you watch them you are either not bothered about accuracy or do not know how to judge it. I would venture to say that anybody having played the game at a decent level will have a huge problem with Hawkeye.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Why the two different rules ? If you were happy without any independent 3rd party certification for umpires why do you suddenly need that now for H/E ?

Bossbhai - this is ridiculous. Umpires have existed in the game as long as the game was played the way we know it now. That is called status quo. You want to change the status quo. Give me a reason. A scientific reason. Now how hard can this be to understand? Your pal Richardson was the one who offered measurement percentages comparing umpires and Hawkeye. You might want to quiz him on how he came by those numbers.

I have never even quoted him in this thread. I posted images from real test matches

And that constitutes scientific, reliable, mathematic proof of Hawkeye's accuracy. Did you ever manage to read my response to that snapshot and link you posted?

That kinda happens with still images isnt it ? The point of the snapshot was to proved an alternate image of where the ball actually struck the stumps without using Haweye and then compare it with what Hawkeye thinks. They both should match. For some reason I thought that explanation wasnt necessary but hey you live and learn. Now unless you are going to say that the camera itself is not reliable you have no case.

The base rule of technology and even science itself, Bossbhai, is that you NEVER assume. You are making that mistake. Even if they are using gazillion cameras, collating data and superimposing the images bit by bit, you think they would get it absolutely one hundred percent correct? If you think yes, then it is not worth discussing. Like I said, we clearly know where we stand. I am not trying to get you to love umpires. So why are you trying to get my approval stamp on Hawkeye. Aint gonna happen - as the Americans say! :)

Not many people watch more cricket than me. So dont bother going that route. You said that Umpires are more reliable than H/E if so I hearby ask you for a millionth time to produce just ONE single error of the magnitude that is otherwise called the Bucknor scale. On the flip side I guarantee you atleast one such howler every single test match. Cook and Ashrafull the latest casulaties. So can we see the casualties of H/E ?

Well, if you do watch cricket then I am stumped as to how you cannot spot the erroneous depictions of Hawkeye. Or perhaps your eyes are far more accurate than any number of commentators and players who have raised objections - including one Roger Federer, by the way :). But well, what does he know...:) About examples, Bossbhai - I dont have the zeal or the memory to search back and find the erroneous representations. But if so many years of watching Hawkeye has not convinced you, then I would not expect singular examples to change you in any way. So why even attempt? You love Hawkeye, you dont have a scientific reason for it. That is fine. Just dont go around saying that it is scientifically and absolutely accurate. You can always say you prefer that and I would have zero problems with that. After all we all are different people.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --